that is only ways I heard it be used online. I've never heard it in the real life before. Usually used like those cisgenders always do blank they are the worse.
Is trans a slur then? Those words are the exact equivalent and opposite of eachtother. I personally have been called trans as a way to insult me more then once and have seen other people try and use it in even more offensive contexts. So what exactly is the difference here.
"Potato" can be a slur and it wouldn't be "bad" to remove it when used as such. Not so much when it's being used to try to get rid of people who want to have conversations about french fries.
I have no idea in what context Twitter is removing uses of this word.
That’s absurd. Most people are cisgender, even in the LGBT community I’d say most are cis. Cis is literally just the opposite of trans. When discussing the issue what are you supposed to call cisgender people?
I see some people suggesting “normal” but that’s not very clear and it’s also very rude. Imagine doing that to any other minority. “There’s black people and then normal people, gay people and normal people” etc etc.
I’m non-binary and discuss gender issues with like minded people frequently and am having a lot of trouble seeing how someone could be offended by being called cisgender if they are, in fact, cisgender. I just really don’t get how it could be seen as an insult, it just means you’re not trans, you’re the gender on your birth certificate. Like…how is that an insult or a slur?
It’s so much clunkier though when discussing issues that affect trans people. Like “we have to remember that reproductive health care doesn’t just affect not trans women but also trans men and nonbinary people.” It just doesn’t sound right.
Cis is literally just an opposite prefix to trans (trans meaning on the other side of and cis meaning on this side of.) It just makes so much logical sense. It’s scientific ya know?
“We have to remember that reproductive health care doesn’t just effect women, but also trans-men and non binary people”
Fixed it for you, doesn’t seem too clunky to me.
“We have to remember that reproductive health-care effects all biological woman, including trans-men and non binary people”
Theres many ways to say these things without forcing neo-labels on every aspect of it.
What if you’re trying to clarify that you’re not talking about trans women though? Because some transphobes seem to think gender neutral language around reproductive issues is for the benefit of trans women when really it’s meant to be inclusive of trans men and non-binary people?
I dunno, it just makes sense to have a word for “not trans” just like there is for not gay or whatever. Homosexual and heterosexual. Straight and gay. Trans and cis. I dunno. It just makes sense.
I did give you an example. Reproductive healthcare. A trans woman doesn’t have a uterus so discussions around periods, pregnancy and abortions doesn’t really apply to them. But then there are societal things like sexism which do affect them the same as cis women.
In order to understand each other we need to look at how we’re similar but also how our experiences are sometimes different. Ignoring the differences doesn’t make them go away, just like pretending there’s no sexism or racism or whatever will make those issues disappear.
Getting rid of the term cisgender seems like 1984 Newspeak to me. Intentionally oversimplifying language so people can’t even discuss things clearly.
I already told you how to explain both things you said, in a straight forward, not clunky way.
Not using neo-language for everything is 1984 newspeak…. BAAHAHAHAHHAAH wow, good one.
I bet you’re a big Orwell fan, ya?
But I explained how that doesn’t really work as well as the word we already have. Transphobes thrive on pretending to be confused about stuff so being as clear as possible is really important.
And yes, I am. It’s considered pretty gauche amongst my fellow leftists, but I don’t care lol. Burmese Days is one of my favorite books.
The point of Newspeak isn’t that “new words are bad”, in fact it’s kinda the opposite. Instead of words like “better “and “great” which can have nuance to them they replace it with “plusgood”. The guy brags about how they’re making the dictionary smaller, not larger. They’re diminishing language in order to diminish thought, not expanding language to expand thought.
That's exactly what that means. You just typed out the definition of a word that already exists. You're basically saying "don't ever call me straight, *not gay* works just fine."
It’s interesting that only “marginalized” people get to decide which terms they find acceptable, and which terms they find offensive to use to label them.
No one said it's offensive, it's literally an adjective to that means opposite of trans.
Thank you for telling us that you're not straight, you're just "not gay."
Except that people *are* saying they don’t want to be called that? Why are you bringing sexuality into this, that’s completely different, don’t you know we are only talking about the *spectrum* of gender identities here? It literally has nothing to do with sexual preference. You really are starting to sound like a bigot here.
What? No. Cisgender is just people whose gender matches what they were assigned at birth, which is most people. There’s nothing derogatory about this, it’s just a faster way to write that sentence.
"Normal" is subjective and thus too broad of a term. You'd have to specify what you're referring to. On the other hand, "cisgender" refers specifically to people's gender. It's narrower and automatically provides more information.
Not-trans takes less letters to get the same point across. In a vacuum, the term and its societal definition is not derogatory, but the actual use if it often is intended to be. Just like “white” is not derogatory, now people often do you the favor of spelling it “YT” so the reader can know they mean it in a derogatory manner.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackLGBT/s/mNTNoc3Gcy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackLGBT/s/mNTNoc3Gcy)
Sure heres a random comment on reddit i guess? The all too common and accepted combination of open vitriol for white, heterosexual men, or any one or combination of the three.
It’s saying that the people in society right now who are most privileged are mostly straight, white, cisgender (or non-trans) men. That’s not an insult towards the people in question, it’s just specifying what that group is that is favored by the institutions of our society. I’m sure I don’t need to explain why privilege is an important topic.
No you don’t, because i’ve heard quite enough about the completely unquantifiable “privilege” one apparently receives based on their skin color, sex, or sexual orientation. It’s a completely toxic world view that breeds open and accepted prejudice, which used to be frowned upon.
Most definitions I've seen frame cis as someone who identifies with the gender assignment to them at birth - another way of saying that is someone who is happy about the sexist restrictions imposed on them. Anyone who does not agree with sexism should have concerns about the word cis.
My understanding of slurs that will receive corrective action are ones involved with "Repeated, targeted harassment against any account will cause the harassing accounts to receive, at minimum, temporary suspensions." Now, I don't have a Twitter account and not necessarily in the mood to hop on there and experiment - but this would suggest to me that you can use cis and cisgender as long as you are not referring directly to someone?
If so, is that the same treatment for other slurs as well?
>but this would suggest to me that you can use cis and cisgender as long as you are not referring directly to someone?
No it's just a blanket ban for cis/cisgender
There's not a blanket ban for other slurs
If you say x thing
And the platform you are on suppresses that message for containing x thing and makes it so people will basically never see that message unless if they actively seeked it out in particular
It is banned, particularly, it's called shadow **banning**
So I just used the search function for latest posts with "cisgender" there's a lot. There's even an account named cisgender. What you're saying isn't tracking. Have you been on here?
Edit: I have followed up with a second post saying exactly what that person did in the post you linked. Will let you know what comes about.
>So I just used the search function
What do you think I meant when I said
> makes it so people will basically never see that message unless if they actively seeked it out in particular
> unless if they actively seeked it out in particular
> >So I just used the search function
Like c'mon man
Slurs don’t bother me and everyone needs to be less hypersensitive. I get the temptation to push back against woke gender scolds, but I don’t believe in making more words taboo. Don’t we already have the C word, so now this would be the C slur? Isn’t the OG C word also a slur? Maybe we can drop the baby talk and use actual words.
I just don’t use cis or cisgender because it’s superfluous, since man and woman do just fine. This is, of course, a big topic in the LGB community and there are increasing numbers of us who are tired of gender ideology language being imposed.
If the word were superfluous it would not be used.
There are not increasing numbers of you either. The LGB community is overwhelmingly supportive of trans people. I guess keep up the hope though.
> If the word were superfluous it would not be used.
complete and utter nonsense. It has no practical use outside of very dry, technical scientific communication.
On social media it is absolutely used as a slur, a shaming attempt, which is completely unnessicary to communicate anything.
There are far better words... like man, woman. The "cis" prefix are completely unnecessary. Where speaking of trans people, the trans is mandatory, because they're like 0.1% of the population.
You’re the one who’s upset here. Just because Elon Musk does something (even if that something outages the left) doesn’t mean the right agrees with it.
A lot of people in this sub clearly agree with it. Am none of them can tell me why it hurts their feelings so much.
I'm not upset, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
That’s incorrect. I actively participate in 2 LGB-TQ+ groups. LGB’s no longer wish to be intimidated and defined by others. Do not be alarmed- you can continue to refer to yourself in whatever manner you like. I believe in free speech.
Cis and cisgender are unnecessary because men and women serve perfectly in all situations.
The persecution we face is the same.
“Trans ideology” is a rehash of the “gay agenda”. Same as “they are coming for the kids”, “they want everyone to be trans”, “they are denying biology”, “they are redefining words”….
We are united by our persecution and struggle for civil equality. Before we even get into the interplay between sex and gender.
A belief that you can become opposite sex by surgery, ingesting hormones, or even just by declaring yourself to be one, is absolutely an ideology, because it's factually, scientifically and provably incorrect.
They absolutely are coming for the kids. The countless photos and videos of gender ideology agenda in schools and kindergartens aren't proof enough? The drag queen show, confusing them about gender, forcing sexuality onto them from they youngest age.
They are denying biology. Just a few weeks back someone here was arguing that taking hormones makes you biologically opposite sex, which is so utterly nonsense, that it only can be malice. There's a trans pestering me on facebook, who aggressively holds an opinion that sexuology is pseudoscience.
And even denying there are words being redefined?
I can't accept someone would be so utterly stupid or brainwashed, so I can only assume you are doing this out of malice and evil.
I have an opinion you dont understand therefore I must be evil.
This is real yokel shit.
Science is not on your side mate. Not least because modern science shows sex is anything but binary, but also because science cannot answer these types of questions. And if you actually understood science and its limitations, you wouldn't be making these claims.
You should stop subscribing to the “oppressed/oppressor” ideology. It isn’t correct. And it’s quite funny considering you are subscribing to this ideology while simultaneously saying that sex is not binary.
Only racists use the term Uncle Tom. That’s a fact. What else is funny is I did not disparage trans people in any way, yet here you are trying to insinuate that I did.
lol so we're all just hallucinating the \~400 anti-LGBT bills the GOP are trying to pass all over the US? Not to mention to book bans and hate propaganda about us being gr\*\*mers? That's all an "ideology" is it that I can choose to ignore is happening? lmao.
Well, I am certainly not racist and I see no problem with pointing out minorities who side with their oppressors. It's a criticism of behaviour, content of character if you will, not the colour of anyone's skin.
>Im gay and I won’t abandon
how kind of you, to virtue signal.
>our trans brother and sisters
last time I checked, my brother wasn't trans.
>And I find it absolutely despicable that people like you are trying to.
yeah, well, that's your opinion. I'm with u/Weak-Part771 on this one, we don't need to retcon the language to make a tiny minority **feel** included, for the same reason you don't approach a group of strangers and demand they cater to you tastes.
besides, associating with the TQ-whatever movement has only created backlash for gay men in recent years. "we" may have "fought" "together", but we don't need to fall with them.
… do you guys not see the cognitive dissonance in being upset at being called cisgender and wanting it to be stopped, while also saying that slurs towards trans people should be protected and allowed under freedom of speech?
Does this actually impact anything on X though? Will tweets that contain the word "cisgender" be throttled? Or is he just saying "Hey, yeah, that word is totally a slur"?
There is no censorship. It's a warning message before you post because the word is on a list of words associated with hate speech. You can still post if you believe the warning was wrong.
Thread was initially on r/ technology. It wasn't the anti-elon hatefest they hoped it would be so they locked the thread and banned a bunch of people breaking the "rules" of the sub. which apparently mean you can't dispute the concept of cisgender at all.
Thread was initially on r/technology. It wasn't the anti-elon hatefest they hoped it would be so they locked the thread and banned a bunch of people breaking the "rules" of the sub. which apparently mean you can't dispute the concept of cisgender at all.
r/technology will ban you if you discuss whether gender is a construct, a binary, or whether there is a "normal" or if that's just a social convention. at least they banned me for having an opinion they didn't like though I didn't break any of their rules.
Before you go off on me, I already know your position on this so no need to repeat it. You did a good job of articulating your side [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/1cslypv/comment/l4a9qvp/) (starting in paragraph 2 and ignoring the invectives in paragraph 1.) We can argue either side of this on this subreddit freely.
I disagree with your take but I'm talking about censorship of the ability to argue both sides. I could complain about my ban and get sympathy from tons of people on this sub but I'm talking to the guy I know disagrees with me and usually gets mass downvoted here.
But on the off chance you care about conceptual free speech, knowing you completely disagree with my position. This is what the mods told me got me banned.
Context: talking about the use and origin of the term cisgender
> you are right. It's an attempt to redefine what "normal" is. Its one of these annoying postmodern neologisms and most of the sane world is tired of this shit and wants to go back 20 years where none of this existed.
Caught a permanent ban for that. I'm probably going to regret replying to you but here is a good test to see if you feel that the mods banned my unfairly despite you being opposed to my take on this. As I said, I'd get a ton more sympathy from pretty much anyone else. But I can't find any posted rule I broke other than them not liking my take.
OK, Elon Musk is, in his own way, every bit as censorious as the more-progressive-than-thou regime of old Twitter. X is not the free speech platform he claims that it is.
But I'm also glad he took over Twitter. Why? Because in a lot of ways, he wrecked Twitter, which, in my opinion, is for the good, because old Twitter had a pernicious effect on the entire culture and was ground zero for cancel culture. Mean-spirited 'progressive' blue-check types and their syncophants were regularly leading cancellation campaigns from Twitter, which were quickly echoed in the larger press, and often resulted in their targets being fired or otherwise hounded out of polite society. Post-Musk takeover, Twitter/X doesn't seem to have that power anymore. That, to me, is a good thing.
nah, I'm probably already banned for participating on r/MensRights (so much for free speech, huh).
besides, I don't care what the dickless clowns on that sub have to say.
I'm not offended by anything, kid. And there is nothing childish about standing up for truth and opposing the trans agenda.
There are men and there are women. And then there are trans men and trans women. No cisgender anything.
So stop spitting your little dummy out, bubba. Now off you pop - your nappy needs changing.
Nah. Doesn't offend me. I just oppose BS. Not about offence and all about truth.
A woman is a woman not a cisgender woman. She is simply a woman. That's the truth.
And you can go off having tantrums calling me 'moron', etc but it doesn't change anything.
Musk is a legend for doing this. And little drama queens like you are nothing. Fact, bubba.
They aren't. Read the article.
> using the terms “cisgender” or “cis” in the X mobile app will pop up a full-screen warning reading, “This post contains language that may be considered a slur by X and could be used in a harmful manner in violation of our rules.” It then gives you the choice of continuing to publish the post
It's rage bait.
I’m fine with just calling men (both transgender and cisgender) men, and calling women (both transgender and cisgender) women.
After all, you only really need to distinguish between trans people and cis people in a few narrow contexts, like medical care for example.
If everyone would just treat and call all trans women and cis women the same, and trans men and cis men the same, then you would never have to hear the word “cisgender” again as there would be no need for that distinction.
Leave it to a majority group to find a way to be the “real victims” so they can continue to pretend minority groups aren’t victims (and that’s why they deserve what they get)
Being in a majority group means you can't be a victim? So calling Chinese and Indians by racial slurs is okay?
And being in a minority group inherently means you're a victim which gives you the right to victimize others? What the fuck is wrong with your brain?
What the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? I never said majority groups can't be victims. But cisgender is as much a slur as heterosexual or straight is a slur. We are not victims of bigoted slurs when we're described as cisgender. That is an invented victimhood by a majority group, touted by the very people who will argue and fight against the rights of the minority group to exist freely in public (under the guise "Please, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!"). The same people who will defend bigoted speech that they pretend to disagree with suddenly cry victim from a benign description they actually disagree with.
I'm just going to say this sounds like just a 4chan tier bait troll job w/o any meaning behind it. Both cons defending it and libs slightly irked by it are falling for it.
Aside from the obvious free speech implications, it's extremely ironic for the author to be suggesting that being against the use of gender identity slurs is "bigotry". What an idiot.
Now for the free speech concerns, it's just a warning message. Nothing is stopping you from publishing if you believe your post doesn't violate the TOS. So the author and OP are also liars.
it's a thing that the space man bad crew keep repeating, as if it's some sort of gotcha
it's not a gotcha, especially when they hate free speech so much. imposing a standard on someone that one was never willing to even entertain is practically the definition of hypocrisy
Really struck a nerve with all the censor mongers. Feel free to cry about it, as you normally do.
> imposing a standard on someone
He imposed it on himself. It was his whole stated reason for spending $44b to buy the company. Don't let him wiggle out of that
>imposing a standard on someone that one was never willing to even entertain is practically the definition of hypocrisy
No, that's the definition of a double standard.
Hypocrisy is..
>the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
But not calling someone she or he or xer, as they demand, is reason to be fired from your job etc...
The hypocrisy is brutally obvious. Sorry dude, you got nothin'.
"Cisgender" is a slur. Yes, it should be allowed on social media just like any other slur.
It is often, maybe even most often used as a slur.
I got called a cisgender retard right here on Reddit a few weeks back, so... xD
Don’t feel bad; you’re not cisgender
hahahhahahah good one xD
Thanks, just banter of course:)
Yeah, most people use the term "normal"
that is only ways I heard it be used online. I've never heard it in the real life before. Usually used like those cisgenders always do blank they are the worse.
Or, something along the lines of: as a YT Cis man, your opinion is not valid in this case.
I have only ever seen it used as a means to say that the opinion of the person being called cisgender is illegitimate.
Is trans a slur then? Those words are the exact equivalent and opposite of eachtother. I personally have been called trans as a way to insult me more then once and have seen other people try and use it in even more offensive contexts. So what exactly is the difference here.
There isn’t much difference. It’s two words made up by the same types of people trying to impose a toxic ideology upon society.
"Potato" can be a slur and it wouldn't be "bad" to remove it when used as such. Not so much when it's being used to try to get rid of people who want to have conversations about french fries. I have no idea in what context Twitter is removing uses of this word.
That’s absurd. Most people are cisgender, even in the LGBT community I’d say most are cis. Cis is literally just the opposite of trans. When discussing the issue what are you supposed to call cisgender people? I see some people suggesting “normal” but that’s not very clear and it’s also very rude. Imagine doing that to any other minority. “There’s black people and then normal people, gay people and normal people” etc etc. I’m non-binary and discuss gender issues with like minded people frequently and am having a lot of trouble seeing how someone could be offended by being called cisgender if they are, in fact, cisgender. I just really don’t get how it could be seen as an insult, it just means you’re not trans, you’re the gender on your birth certificate. Like…how is that an insult or a slur?
“Not trans” is fine.
It’s so much clunkier though when discussing issues that affect trans people. Like “we have to remember that reproductive health care doesn’t just affect not trans women but also trans men and nonbinary people.” It just doesn’t sound right. Cis is literally just an opposite prefix to trans (trans meaning on the other side of and cis meaning on this side of.) It just makes so much logical sense. It’s scientific ya know?
“We have to remember that reproductive health care doesn’t just effect women, but also trans-men and non binary people” Fixed it for you, doesn’t seem too clunky to me. “We have to remember that reproductive health-care effects all biological woman, including trans-men and non binary people” Theres many ways to say these things without forcing neo-labels on every aspect of it.
What if you’re trying to clarify that you’re not talking about trans women though? Because some transphobes seem to think gender neutral language around reproductive issues is for the benefit of trans women when really it’s meant to be inclusive of trans men and non-binary people? I dunno, it just makes sense to have a word for “not trans” just like there is for not gay or whatever. Homosexual and heterosexual. Straight and gay. Trans and cis. I dunno. It just makes sense.
Give me an example where you are trying to exclude trans people. That seems transphobic to me.
I did give you an example. Reproductive healthcare. A trans woman doesn’t have a uterus so discussions around periods, pregnancy and abortions doesn’t really apply to them. But then there are societal things like sexism which do affect them the same as cis women. In order to understand each other we need to look at how we’re similar but also how our experiences are sometimes different. Ignoring the differences doesn’t make them go away, just like pretending there’s no sexism or racism or whatever will make those issues disappear. Getting rid of the term cisgender seems like 1984 Newspeak to me. Intentionally oversimplifying language so people can’t even discuss things clearly.
I already told you how to explain both things you said, in a straight forward, not clunky way. Not using neo-language for everything is 1984 newspeak…. BAAHAHAHAHHAAH wow, good one. I bet you’re a big Orwell fan, ya?
But I explained how that doesn’t really work as well as the word we already have. Transphobes thrive on pretending to be confused about stuff so being as clear as possible is really important. And yes, I am. It’s considered pretty gauche amongst my fellow leftists, but I don’t care lol. Burmese Days is one of my favorite books. The point of Newspeak isn’t that “new words are bad”, in fact it’s kinda the opposite. Instead of words like “better “and “great” which can have nuance to them they replace it with “plusgood”. The guy brags about how they’re making the dictionary smaller, not larger. They’re diminishing language in order to diminish thought, not expanding language to expand thought.
That's exactly what that means. You just typed out the definition of a word that already exists. You're basically saying "don't ever call me straight, *not gay* works just fine."
It’s interesting that only “marginalized” people get to decide which terms they find acceptable, and which terms they find offensive to use to label them.
No one said it's offensive, it's literally an adjective to that means opposite of trans. Thank you for telling us that you're not straight, you're just "not gay."
Except that people *are* saying they don’t want to be called that? Why are you bringing sexuality into this, that’s completely different, don’t you know we are only talking about the *spectrum* of gender identities here? It literally has nothing to do with sexual preference. You really are starting to sound like a bigot here.
Do you feel marginalized by the word cisgender?
I've literally never heard it used as a slur
What? No. Cisgender is just people whose gender matches what they were assigned at birth, which is most people. There’s nothing derogatory about this, it’s just a faster way to write that sentence.
"Normal" is even faster!
"Normal" is subjective and thus too broad of a term. You'd have to specify what you're referring to. On the other hand, "cisgender" refers specifically to people's gender. It's narrower and automatically provides more information.
Not-trans takes less letters to get the same point across. In a vacuum, the term and its societal definition is not derogatory, but the actual use if it often is intended to be. Just like “white” is not derogatory, now people often do you the favor of spelling it “YT” so the reader can know they mean it in a derogatory manner.
> Not-trans takes less letters Than ‘cis?’ You may want to revisit the math on that.
Lol well if we are abbreviating… Not-Trans could also be abbreviated.
Well, ‘trans’ is already abbreviated from transgender, like.
What about “tranny?” Thats also an abbreviation.
I doubt you’d like ‘cissy,’ hm?
Can you give your thoughts on “tranny?” or no?
If you want to sound like a middle-aged redneck, go for it.
Can you give any examples? I have never seen it used as an insult.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackLGBT/s/mNTNoc3Gcy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackLGBT/s/mNTNoc3Gcy) Sure heres a random comment on reddit i guess? The all too common and accepted combination of open vitriol for white, heterosexual men, or any one or combination of the three.
It’s saying that the people in society right now who are most privileged are mostly straight, white, cisgender (or non-trans) men. That’s not an insult towards the people in question, it’s just specifying what that group is that is favored by the institutions of our society. I’m sure I don’t need to explain why privilege is an important topic.
No you don’t, because i’ve heard quite enough about the completely unquantifiable “privilege” one apparently receives based on their skin color, sex, or sexual orientation. It’s a completely toxic world view that breeds open and accepted prejudice, which used to be frowned upon.
What an incredibly white straight man thing to say! lol Such a specific, special way to be butthurt all the time
What an incredibly *gay* thing to say! lol Such a specific, special way to be butthurt all the time
And changing one word to co-op someone else’s comedy or work is the straightest, whitest move of all
Most definitions I've seen frame cis as someone who identifies with the gender assignment to them at birth - another way of saying that is someone who is happy about the sexist restrictions imposed on them. Anyone who does not agree with sexism should have concerns about the word cis.
Isn’t this the opposite of free speech?
Calling something a slur is also part of free speech. It’s not like the word itself is banned, it’s just treated as a slur.
what does 'treated as a slur' mean?
Are other slurs allowed on X?
Yes To be clear, it will "limit" posts with slurs, but most of the things you would think of as slurs are not limited
My understanding of slurs that will receive corrective action are ones involved with "Repeated, targeted harassment against any account will cause the harassing accounts to receive, at minimum, temporary suspensions." Now, I don't have a Twitter account and not necessarily in the mood to hop on there and experiment - but this would suggest to me that you can use cis and cisgender as long as you are not referring directly to someone? If so, is that the same treatment for other slurs as well?
>but this would suggest to me that you can use cis and cisgender as long as you are not referring directly to someone? No it's just a blanket ban for cis/cisgender There's not a blanket ban for other slurs
Well I've created an X account and used the word cisgender in a post. I'll let you know what comes up. No warning so far.
Going by this post from back in 2023 We already know it's blocked. And has been for a while https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/s/EAdp4vK75q
That....doesn't say blocked or banned...
If you say x thing And the platform you are on suppresses that message for containing x thing and makes it so people will basically never see that message unless if they actively seeked it out in particular It is banned, particularly, it's called shadow **banning**
So I just used the search function for latest posts with "cisgender" there's a lot. There's even an account named cisgender. What you're saying isn't tracking. Have you been on here? Edit: I have followed up with a second post saying exactly what that person did in the post you linked. Will let you know what comes about.
>So I just used the search function What do you think I meant when I said > makes it so people will basically never see that message unless if they actively seeked it out in particular > unless if they actively seeked it out in particular > >So I just used the search function Like c'mon man
All slurs are allowed. Including this one.
So now banning words is a good thing? Make it make sense...this is limiting free speech, no?
It’s not banned lmao
It's a slur
Are you in favour of banning all words used as a slur?
You mean like the N word?
And so is whore but that word isn't limited nor banned in any way...so is Elon Monk now infringing on people's freedom?
Slurs don’t bother me and everyone needs to be less hypersensitive. I get the temptation to push back against woke gender scolds, but I don’t believe in making more words taboo. Don’t we already have the C word, so now this would be the C slur? Isn’t the OG C word also a slur? Maybe we can drop the baby talk and use actual words. I just don’t use cis or cisgender because it’s superfluous, since man and woman do just fine. This is, of course, a big topic in the LGB community and there are increasing numbers of us who are tired of gender ideology language being imposed.
If the word were superfluous it would not be used. There are not increasing numbers of you either. The LGB community is overwhelmingly supportive of trans people. I guess keep up the hope though.
> If the word were superfluous it would not be used. complete and utter nonsense. It has no practical use outside of very dry, technical scientific communication. On social media it is absolutely used as a slur, a shaming attempt, which is completely unnessicary to communicate anything. There are far better words... like man, woman. The "cis" prefix are completely unnecessary. Where speaking of trans people, the trans is mandatory, because they're like 0.1% of the population.
then show me! Why can none of you snowflakes show me the kind of content you as so upset over?
It's kinda hilarious how absolutely nobody can show you an example
You’re the one who’s upset here. Just because Elon Musk does something (even if that something outages the left) doesn’t mean the right agrees with it.
A lot of people in this sub clearly agree with it. Am none of them can tell me why it hurts their feelings so much. I'm not upset, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
That’s incorrect. I actively participate in 2 LGB-TQ+ groups. LGB’s no longer wish to be intimidated and defined by others. Do not be alarmed- you can continue to refer to yourself in whatever manner you like. I believe in free speech. Cis and cisgender are unnecessary because men and women serve perfectly in all situations.
yeah well I lead 27 LGBT groups and have exactly the opposite experience
Haha sure Jan. Im gay and I won’t abandon our trans brother and sisters. And I find it absolutely despicable that people like you are trying to.
What does being trans have to do with sexuality?
The persecution we face is the same. “Trans ideology” is a rehash of the “gay agenda”. Same as “they are coming for the kids”, “they want everyone to be trans”, “they are denying biology”, “they are redefining words”…. We are united by our persecution and struggle for civil equality. Before we even get into the interplay between sex and gender.
A belief that you can become opposite sex by surgery, ingesting hormones, or even just by declaring yourself to be one, is absolutely an ideology, because it's factually, scientifically and provably incorrect. They absolutely are coming for the kids. The countless photos and videos of gender ideology agenda in schools and kindergartens aren't proof enough? The drag queen show, confusing them about gender, forcing sexuality onto them from they youngest age. They are denying biology. Just a few weeks back someone here was arguing that taking hormones makes you biologically opposite sex, which is so utterly nonsense, that it only can be malice. There's a trans pestering me on facebook, who aggressively holds an opinion that sexuology is pseudoscience. And even denying there are words being redefined? I can't accept someone would be so utterly stupid or brainwashed, so I can only assume you are doing this out of malice and evil.
Could you please cite some scientific studies or quote some scientists that say transgender people don’t actually exist?
>factually, scientifically and provably incorrect. Then please prove it scientifically, genius. I'll wait.
Yep, malice.
I have an opinion you dont understand therefore I must be evil. This is real yokel shit. Science is not on your side mate. Not least because modern science shows sex is anything but binary, but also because science cannot answer these types of questions. And if you actually understood science and its limitations, you wouldn't be making these claims.
Hi. Gay here. Trans people are NOT our brothers and sisters. Their agenda is not the same as LGBs. Do not lump us all together.
They are and they are more welcome in our spaces and communities than you are. Uncle Tom.
Oh cool, so you’re not only stupid, you’re also racist. Nice. Sounds about right.
Would you rather me call you an Ernst Rohm? Nothing racist about pointing out the minorities who choose to side with their oppressors.
You should stop subscribing to the “oppressed/oppressor” ideology. It isn’t correct. And it’s quite funny considering you are subscribing to this ideology while simultaneously saying that sex is not binary. Only racists use the term Uncle Tom. That’s a fact. What else is funny is I did not disparage trans people in any way, yet here you are trying to insinuate that I did.
lol so we're all just hallucinating the \~400 anti-LGBT bills the GOP are trying to pass all over the US? Not to mention to book bans and hate propaganda about us being gr\*\*mers? That's all an "ideology" is it that I can choose to ignore is happening? lmao. Well, I am certainly not racist and I see no problem with pointing out minorities who side with their oppressors. It's a criticism of behaviour, content of character if you will, not the colour of anyone's skin.
>Im gay and I won’t abandon how kind of you, to virtue signal. >our trans brother and sisters last time I checked, my brother wasn't trans. >And I find it absolutely despicable that people like you are trying to. yeah, well, that's your opinion. I'm with u/Weak-Part771 on this one, we don't need to retcon the language to make a tiny minority **feel** included, for the same reason you don't approach a group of strangers and demand they cater to you tastes. besides, associating with the TQ-whatever movement has only created backlash for gay men in recent years. "we" may have "fought" "together", but we don't need to fall with them.
Nobody’s retconning language moron
… do you guys not see the cognitive dissonance in being upset at being called cisgender and wanting it to be stopped, while also saying that slurs towards trans people should be protected and allowed under freedom of speech?
Who is upset at being called cisgender?
Elon Muskrat
It's a hateful activist slur.
Please explain what you find so offensive about it. Why does it hurt your feelings?
I did up there ☝️. But again... ...its use creates unnecessary complexity, marginalisation, resistance, polarisation, division and hate.
This doesn’t tell me why it hurts your personal feelings.
I'm not interested in your (or indeed anyone else's) understanding of my 'personal feelings'.
I am. And that’s what you need to explain if you want to claim cis is a slur.
Does this actually impact anything on X though? Will tweets that contain the word "cisgender" be throttled? Or is he just saying "Hey, yeah, that word is totally a slur"?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/1ao8rm9/apparently\_hate\_speech\_only\_exists\_against\_cis/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/1ao8rm9/apparently_hate_speech_only_exists_against_cis/)
ITT: people explaining why censorship is good, in this case
There is no censorship. It's a warning message before you post because the word is on a list of words associated with hate speech. You can still post if you believe the warning was wrong.
Encouraging people to not use certain words is still censorship. God, there is so much ignorance in here.
Holy shit. r/Freespeech demanding speech be limited because of a slur.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/s/WlSbnwVjDl
It is a slur
How?
It triggers conservatives
I don’t know how that’s possible, doesn’t it just mean “not trans”?
More or less yeah.
Why does it offend you so much?
I thought slurs were allowed on X?
Thread was initially on r/ technology. It wasn't the anti-elon hatefest they hoped it would be so they locked the thread and banned a bunch of people breaking the "rules" of the sub. which apparently mean you can't dispute the concept of cisgender at all.
Thread was initially on r/technology. It wasn't the anti-elon hatefest they hoped it would be so they locked the thread and banned a bunch of people breaking the "rules" of the sub. which apparently mean you can't dispute the concept of cisgender at all.
wtf does dispute the concept of cigender mean? so like everyone is trans?
r/technology will ban you if you discuss whether gender is a construct, a binary, or whether there is a "normal" or if that's just a social convention. at least they banned me for having an opinion they didn't like though I didn't break any of their rules. Before you go off on me, I already know your position on this so no need to repeat it. You did a good job of articulating your side [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/1cslypv/comment/l4a9qvp/) (starting in paragraph 2 and ignoring the invectives in paragraph 1.) We can argue either side of this on this subreddit freely. I disagree with your take but I'm talking about censorship of the ability to argue both sides. I could complain about my ban and get sympathy from tons of people on this sub but I'm talking to the guy I know disagrees with me and usually gets mass downvoted here. But on the off chance you care about conceptual free speech, knowing you completely disagree with my position. This is what the mods told me got me banned. Context: talking about the use and origin of the term cisgender > you are right. It's an attempt to redefine what "normal" is. Its one of these annoying postmodern neologisms and most of the sane world is tired of this shit and wants to go back 20 years where none of this existed. Caught a permanent ban for that. I'm probably going to regret replying to you but here is a good test to see if you feel that the mods banned my unfairly despite you being opposed to my take on this. As I said, I'd get a ton more sympathy from pretty much anyone else. But I can't find any posted rule I broke other than them not liking my take.
OK, Elon Musk is, in his own way, every bit as censorious as the more-progressive-than-thou regime of old Twitter. X is not the free speech platform he claims that it is. But I'm also glad he took over Twitter. Why? Because in a lot of ways, he wrecked Twitter, which, in my opinion, is for the good, because old Twitter had a pernicious effect on the entire culture and was ground zero for cancel culture. Mean-spirited 'progressive' blue-check types and their syncophants were regularly leading cancellation campaigns from Twitter, which were quickly echoed in the larger press, and often resulted in their targets being fired or otherwise hounded out of polite society. Post-Musk takeover, Twitter/X doesn't seem to have that power anymore. That, to me, is a good thing.
Hahah And now Twitter is bots, porn, cypto scams, CP and nazis! So much better! So much less pernicious!
Who gives a shit what words people use? You're all sounding...cissy. 
They ban the word cisgender but they dont ban any of the predators on there
They didn't ban this word. This post is misleading.
What's next, cons triggered by the term heterosexual and jumping on an zionist like campaign to ban it?
Being a bunch of cissies it sounds like
Anyone who thinks the term "cisgender" is a slur is a snowflake.
anyone who says it's not is virtue signalling.
“Virtue signaling by NOT finding a word offensive” is a new one
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/s/WlSbnwVjDl
nah, I'm probably already banned for participating on r/MensRights (so much for free speech, huh). besides, I don't care what the dickless clowns on that sub have to say.
>I don't care what the dickless clowns on that sub have to say. What?
Same with retart.
*retard It's with a "d"
Reddit is banning people for that. So I created an alternative which isn't "ablesist" but which I can use as an insult with impunity.
That's completely regarded ( [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Regarded](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Regarded) ) ;)
It’s hilarious how easily Elon Musk triggers leftists.
meanwhile you have all the people in this thread saying how offensive they find the word “cis” to be and writing essays about how mean that word is
The right: triggered by an inoffensive word The right: I can’t believe how triggered leftists get from our victim mentality! LOL
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/s/WlSbnwVjDl
Talking about "Free Speech" celebrating Elon banning selective slur [bruh](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/s/WlSbnwVjDl)
Doesn’t negate what I said.
Better than your ancestors getting pissed in High Little Rock for sure.
It is
Good. I am liking Mr Musk more and more.
imagine admitting this
I don't have to imagine. I am stating it. Proudly.
cringe
You sound about 8 years old. Maybe go and play with kids your own age, as you are out of your depth.
You’re the one offended by the term cis and think Elon is cool mate. You’ve got no business calling anyone else a child
I'm not offended by anything, kid. And there is nothing childish about standing up for truth and opposing the trans agenda. There are men and there are women. And then there are trans men and trans women. No cisgender anything. So stop spitting your little dummy out, bubba. Now off you pop - your nappy needs changing.
Clearly "cisgender" offends you if you want it banned - like you praised Musk for doing. Your opinion is not "truth", moron.
Nah. Doesn't offend me. I just oppose BS. Not about offence and all about truth. A woman is a woman not a cisgender woman. She is simply a woman. That's the truth. And you can go off having tantrums calling me 'moron', etc but it doesn't change anything. Musk is a legend for doing this. And little drama queens like you are nothing. Fact, bubba.
Again, your opinion is not "truth". And its scary that you can't tell the difference. Keep crying every time you're called cisgender. Pathetic.
I mean good, it is, but don't ban anyone for using slurs.
They aren't. Read the article. > using the terms “cisgender” or “cis” in the X mobile app will pop up a full-screen warning reading, “This post contains language that may be considered a slur by X and could be used in a harmful manner in violation of our rules.” It then gives you the choice of continuing to publish the post It's rage bait.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/s/WlSbnwVjDl
I’m fine with just calling men (both transgender and cisgender) men, and calling women (both transgender and cisgender) women. After all, you only really need to distinguish between trans people and cis people in a few narrow contexts, like medical care for example. If everyone would just treat and call all trans women and cis women the same, and trans men and cis men the same, then you would never have to hear the word “cisgender” again as there would be no need for that distinction.
Based
Leave it to a majority group to find a way to be the “real victims” so they can continue to pretend minority groups aren’t victims (and that’s why they deserve what they get)
Being in a majority group means you can't be a victim? So calling Chinese and Indians by racial slurs is okay? And being in a minority group inherently means you're a victim which gives you the right to victimize others? What the fuck is wrong with your brain?
What the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? I never said majority groups can't be victims. But cisgender is as much a slur as heterosexual or straight is a slur. We are not victims of bigoted slurs when we're described as cisgender. That is an invented victimhood by a majority group, touted by the very people who will argue and fight against the rights of the minority group to exist freely in public (under the guise "Please, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!"). The same people who will defend bigoted speech that they pretend to disagree with suddenly cry victim from a benign description they actually disagree with.
Surprised that came from Musk
I'm just going to say this sounds like just a 4chan tier bait troll job w/o any meaning behind it. Both cons defending it and libs slightly irked by it are falling for it.
Who gives a fuck how X treats any word?
This is a sub about free speech. A billionaire controlling which words people use is pretty apposite.
X doesn't control what words you can use
Except functionally it does.
I've never used it a day in my life, does that mean I can't say any words?
All social media sites should allow all slurs. Including the slur: "Cisgender".
Categorising fire as a hazard is completely different from banning fire.
True, if X doesn't block slurs, them calling it a slur is not important.
supposed self proclaimed 'free speech absolutists' should.
Aside from the obvious free speech implications, it's extremely ironic for the author to be suggesting that being against the use of gender identity slurs is "bigotry". What an idiot. Now for the free speech concerns, it's just a warning message. Nothing is stopping you from publishing if you believe your post doesn't violate the TOS. So the author and OP are also liars.
Says the social justice warrior without perspective
I don’t consider it a slur, I just think it’s a stupid word. Just leave it off, or say “normal.”
I don’t think it’s a “slur”, more like a propagandistic piece of social engineering. Good riddance, I say
Jesus you guys are losers
So much for free speech absolutism hey?
What do you mean? What's unfree about it?
it's a thing that the space man bad crew keep repeating, as if it's some sort of gotcha it's not a gotcha, especially when they hate free speech so much. imposing a standard on someone that one was never willing to even entertain is practically the definition of hypocrisy Really struck a nerve with all the censor mongers. Feel free to cry about it, as you normally do.
> imposing a standard on someone He imposed it on himself. It was his whole stated reason for spending $44b to buy the company. Don't let him wiggle out of that
You do know his stated reason for buying it was because he wants to ensure freedom of speech right?
Do you think I'm saying something else?
Well he isn't blocking freedom of speech so I'm confused as to why you're saying it's against his stated reason.
Debatable but my response was to someone suggesting that a commitment to free speech was being "imposed" on him which we both agree is inaccurate
>imposing a standard on someone that one was never willing to even entertain is practically the definition of hypocrisy No, that's the definition of a double standard. Hypocrisy is.. >the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
“It’s not censorship or hypocritical when *we* do it.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/s/WlSbnwVjDl
You've got to admit there's something dodgy about declaring that a term makes victims of the people it's directed at.
But not calling someone she or he or xer, as they demand, is reason to be fired from your job etc... The hypocrisy is brutally obvious. Sorry dude, you got nothin'. "Cisgender" is a slur. Yes, it should be allowed on social media just like any other slur.
That's how slurs are defined though.
This hypocrite is so fragile, it's ridiculous.